To add to your post Bruce, I would say that how a team begins each game is indicative of how prepared they are. If a team comes out flat, I think that the coaches should take much of the blame. The Browns came out and laid an egg in the first quarter, and were down 14 0 in a hurry.

The play-calling has been completely suspect. You may argue again that it is mostly execution. I see poorly conceived plays. When Mccoy was in last year, he was the check-down king. How many times were we left screaming at the tv when a 5 yard out was completed on 3rd and 10. Enter Brandon Weeden. There are 5 trips to the red-zone and not 1 pass that was thrown to the end zone. Is this solely the QB's fault? The coach has to shoulder some of this blame.

I would love to see the stat of how many 3rd and 1 plays were incomplete, drive-killing pass plays. Not having a supremely talented team and being young are certainly part of the reason the team has not been successful. The coach has not done his job either.

To ridicule your post, along with bruce's (just kidding guys), I would say that that it is rather common to have slow starting games in today's NFL and that when the opposing offense fails to score early, by your own words, it is a reflection of the head coach's ability to prepare the defense.

Also:

-Weeden chooses himself where to throw the passes, not the head coach
When Weeden, Mccoy, or whomever is the QB is consistently throwing underneath passes that aren't gaining 1st downs on 3rd down plays, the Wr's are either never open, they don't trust themselves to make a good throw, or the coach hasn't called a play that was good enough to get them a 1st down. It's not the QB's fault every time.

- Early scoring is usually due to defensive mistakes (or offensive turnovers) and NOT due to super-fantastic play calling. NFL teams tend to use the first few possessions to feel-out their opponent's game plan

Talk about a blanket statement. Show me facts that prove that early scoring is due to defensive mistakes. That is absolutely ridiculous. Teams that don't do well early are poorly coached.

-Play calls are best made if they incorporate strengths of the players, e.g. if a player has not shown a consistent ability to beat one on one coverage, it would not be wise to force the ball to him by calling plays where the opposing defense plays him man to man

If that's the case then why didn't Mccoy and now Weeden play the majority of their snaps out of the shotgun? This is what they did in college. I would argue that this coaching staff does just the opposite. Rather than play to the strengths of the team, they shove the west coast offense down their throats. The west coast offense that they use appears outdated and archaic.

-If the QB had not shown a consistent ability to make a back shoulder throw AND this may be due in part to the inexperience of both the route runner and the QB, it's not wise to call that play in a crucial situation, especially since it resulted in a few INTs recently

How about not abandoning the run when you drafted someone third overall that is supposed to be the cornerstone of your offense?

-If the QB and WRs have shown a good ability to hit on slants and curls, probably a good idea to incorporate that into the game plan and use that as your "go-to" play in crucial situations

So the slants work. Yippdeefreakin do. Do you think that opposing teams may try to take that away from you in crucial situations? You need more than just slants and curls to have a successful passing offense

-If the QB is given a few chances every game to complete a deep pass, but has been missing on overthrows recently, you might want to limit that play against cover 2, or when you are playing against someone like Ed Reed

So don't throw deep at all? Don't try to get in the endzone and settle for 5 fg's? mmmmmm......no

-If on 3rd and 1, your RB has failed to get the yard 4 out of 6 chances, is that really a play calling issue? We have had about 14 3rd and 1 chances this season. We converted only 6 of them. 4 of them were by Weeden with 2 scrambles and 2 passes. Weeden also had a pick on 3rd and 1 against the Giants. By the way, TRich failed his first 3rd and 1 try (Eagles), then Weeden converted the next 2 tries (1st Bengals game), then TRich failed his 2nd (our 4th 3rd and 1 chance) try (Buff). Blame whoever you want for Richardson not being able to make a yard those first 2 times, but don't blame the play call.

How about running behind a competent FB? Not the coaches fault that Marecic blows, but we do have Smelley on the practice squad. Instead they use Alex Smith who plays TE. BTW...You want examples of bonehead decisions. How about when they handed off to Smith last year and Shurmur says he didn't realize he was in the game.

Now, I have been pretty specific. If you want to continue criticizing play calls, please do the same. Making blanket statements without showing evidence is reflective of a weak opinion.

The 4th and 1 in Indy that we decided to punt.

Last year not being ready against Cincy and they run a play that ends up being an AJ Green game winning TD.

His decision to leave Colt in the game against Pitt when he just got his head ripped off by Harrison,

Leaving Weeden in the game the 1st game of the year when we clearly had a chance to win with anyone else in the game.

You can throw out all the stats you want and they still will not refute what a bonehead Shurmur is. If you want me to fish through every game over the last 2 years, I'm sure I will find countless mistakes that he has made, some of which cost us games for sure. I would rather cut ties now, but if it happens at the end of the year, so be it.

Thanks bro, much easier to have a discussion when you give specifics.

- I don't "throw out" stats, you do when you ignore them

- Colt can take himself out of the game whenever he wants, he wanted to play and the staff thought he was ok. Had he thrown a TD instead of a game losing INT a few plays after he returned, it would be just like every other time coaches sent players back into a game with a possible concussion. You choose to fixate on this as some kind of proof that Shurmur is bad, yet you ignore it when other coaches do it because they win.

-The first game of the year is about the worst time to bench a rookie. Why you don't know that is pretty strange. You aslo assume that Colt could have done better, when you know that he has not won much.

-Punting on 4th and 1 is bad? What if we went for it and we failed to convert , as we have done often on 3rd and 1?

-Marecic was benched for poor play, and as for the Smith handoff, all coaches make mistakes, especially in their first year

-I'm not sure why you are saying not to throw the ball deep at all, I clearly said that we limit deep passes RECENTLY against players like Ed Reed due to the risk and ineffectiveness of recent tries. Weeden is still taking plenty of shots down the field, did you not know this?

-We absolutely need more than slants and curls and dumpoffs to work, guess we need to magically have players that are more experienced at executing those other plays huh? Those "other plays" certainly are called several times a game.

-How about paying attention to the game situation, defense, and success of the run game before you criticize a pass play being called?

-Playing out of the shotgun limits the versatility of the play, helps the defense to a degree regarding playing the pass, and can shrink the window of opportunity to complete a pass. Shotgun works much better when used with experienced WRs and a good pass blocking RB. We also use plenty of shotgun, by the way._________________

The only stats I am concerned with are 2-13 in his team's last 15 games, and 1-8 vs. division teams during that stretch, often looking perplexed and seemingly making questionable decisions/calls throughout the process.

I think the team does not know how to win because Shurmur does not know how to win.

It's ok if you want to be closed-minded and only be concerned with things that propogate your own weak opinion, just don't expect any intelligent discussion to come from it.

I am closed minded. Shurmur never should have been hired and wouldn't have been if not for his Uncle "Big". I have said that since day one and will stick to it. It helps that he has done nothing to prove me wrong.

Shurmur makes Chris Palmer look animated._________________Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way

Talk about a blanket statement. Show me facts that prove that early scoring is due to defensive mistakes. That is absolutely ridiculous. Teams that don't do well early are poorly coached.

See, this is what I was talking about, your use of blanket statements.

"early scoring is due to defensive mistakes"? Who said that?

"teams that don't do well early are poorly coached"? THAT is ridiculous.

What I actually said was "Early scoring is usually due to defensive mistakes (or offensive turnovers) and NOT due to super-fantastic play calling. NFL teams tend to use the first few possessions to feel-out their opponent's game plan"

The undefeated Falcons went 3 and out their first possession against the Panthers, punted their first possession against the Skins, had an INT on their first possession against the Raiders, went 3 and out against the Cowboys in their first possession. They are not poorly coached.

If teams are able to score on an opening drive, it is most often due to defensive mistakes or turnovers, like in the Falcons first 3 games of the season, in which they scored on every opening drive. Opening day, the Chiefs allowed a 12 play 80 yard drive consisting of the same plays that all teams use. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which the defensive did not make any mistakes in allowing 12 plays for 80 yards right?

The second week against the Broncos, the Falcons intercepted Manning and returned it to the 1 yard line starting the Falcons 1st offensive possession, then they scored on 3rd and 1 from the 1.

Week 3, the Falcons scored on their first possession after a 10 play, 80 yard drive. They had no 3rd downs on the drive and converted 2nd and long 3 times.

Shall we compare the experience difference between the Falcons offense and ours?

The Browns had a 6 play scoring drive their first possession of the year, due to an Eagles fumble.

We went 4 and out the first possession of the first Bengals game, which resulted in a punt return for a TD (thanks to the great Bengals coach calling the "punt return for a TD" play).

The Buffalo game we went 3 and out, then the Bills scored their first possession thanks to some shaky play by Sheldon Brown.

The first Ravens game nobody scored on their first possession, probably not because both teams are poorly coached.

The Giants game we scored on our first possession due to a Giants fumble, then we held them on their second possession as well. Are they poorly coached?

The second Bengals game had our first drive ended on an INT after 9 plays. Geez, teams really need to take the INT play out of the playbook huh?

Our first drive of the Colts game was 16 play TD drive that included converting 4 3rd downs including 3 3rd and longs. Too bad our defense allowed the Colts to score on long drives their first TWO possessions. Shurmur should have called for an INT or Fumble play on defense huh?

The Chargers game started with a defensive stop on 4th down that led to our 12 play 70 yard TD drive on our first possession. Wow, we were good early on defense AND offense, well except for letting the Chargers get into FG range on their drive but then they had to go for it since the weather was bad.

The second Ravens game, we went 3 and out on our first drive. I guess you think because Shurmur called for an “incomplete pass” play on 3rd down. Weird huh? It’s not like Richardson loses yards on 3rd and 1 right? I mean, Richardson makes 3rd and 1 33% of the time and Weeden only converts it 50% of the time, so…um…..yeah

Anyway bro, try to account for defensive play more. If an offense doesnt score early, maybe the defense is playing well early, get it?_________________

The team has struggled mightily in short-yardage situations, converting just 8-of-18 third-and-1s.

Browns rookie quarterback Brandon Weeden has a large enough learning curve without having to wait for the plays, process the information and relay it to teammates in the huddle. Weeden didn't have to say a word after Sunday's loss when asked about the three timeouts. The frustration was evident.

Of course, the season's low moment for play-calling came in the 17-13 defeat at Indianapolis on Oct. 21. The Browns failed to pick up one yard on two tries from the Colts' 41 late in the game. In Shurmur's defense, the Browns made a great call on third down and Josh Gordon dropped a touchdown pass.

But the 40-second play clock waits for no one and by the time the Browns elected to go for it they were not ready to run a play. After calling time out, Shurmur elected to punt. Browns owner Jimmy Haslam didn't have to say a word. The frustration was evident.

Unlike Crennel and the Chiefs, losing by an average of 13.8 points, the Browns are in virtually every game. But when you continue to squander them and game management is a recurring issue, maybe it's time to allow someone else make the calls. That is, while it's still your decision to make.

Hey folks, this is certain proof that using a timeout automatically makes you lose games.

How can anyone disagree that Shurmur is a the worst coach ever to play QB, WR, RB, and defense ever!!!

In other news, plenty of winning coaches use timeouts when plays come in from the sideline too slow or in crucial game situations. Apparently, this is not a big deal when the play is executed well or the team wins.

Now, it may be a great idea to "streamline' the play calling. Teams should always try to be more efficient with everything, but that's not why we are losing. Why some people perseverate on blaming the coach is a testament to ignorance.

My advice would be to watch the games, watch the performance of the players on our team and that of the opponent. Watch the overall competitiveness and give the coaching some credit for that. Watch the individual mistakes by the players and give those individual players credit for that.

And hey people, we had 5 possessions in which we could have scored AFTER the Gordon TD in the Colts game. We even had a possession after the punt on 4th and 1 from the Cots 41 which some seem to have a problem with.

We punted, held them to 3 and out, got the ball back with over 4 minutes left and down 17-13. AND THEN...we had decent starting field position at our own 31, moved the ball to the Colts 43 in 2 plays, but had 3 incomplete passes, including the one to Cooper on 4th down. There's your game.

Go cry about the execution, the play of Weeden, Gordon, Little, the Offensive Line...and hey, how about credit to the Colts defense as well.

NAW...just be unreasonable, close your eyes, and buy into the hype directing you toward ignorance and help reward those marketing teams that assume you all want to be led like over-emotional sheep to their conclusions. They love it when you don't think, by the way._________________

The team has struggled mightily in short-yardage situations, converting just 8-of-18 third-and-1s.

Browns rookie quarterback Brandon Weeden has a large enough learning curve without having to wait for the plays, process the information and relay it to teammates in the huddle. Weeden didn't have to say a word after Sunday's loss when asked about the three timeouts. The frustration was evident.

Of course, the season's low moment for play-calling came in the 17-13 defeat at Indianapolis on Oct. 21. The Browns failed to pick up one yard on two tries from the Colts' 41 late in the game. In Shurmur's defense, the Browns made a great call on third down and Josh Gordon dropped a touchdown pass.

But the 40-second play clock waits for no one and by the time the Browns elected to go for it they were not ready to run a play. After calling time out, Shurmur elected to punt. Browns owner Jimmy Haslam didn't have to say a word. The frustration was evident.

Unlike Crennel and the Chiefs, losing by an average of 13.8 points, the Browns are in virtually every game. But when you continue to squander them and game management is a recurring issue, maybe it's time to allow someone else make the calls. That is, while it's still your decision to make.

Hey folks, this is certain proof that using a timeout automatically makes you lose games.

How can anyone disagree that Shurmur is a the worst coach ever to play QB, WR, RB, and defense ever!!!

In other news, plenty of winning coaches use timeouts when plays come in from the sideline too slow or in crucial game situations. Apparently, this is not a big deal when the play is executed well or the team wins.

Now, it may be a great idea to "streamline' the play calling. Teams should always try to be more efficient with everything, but that's not why we are losing. Why some people perseverate on blaming the coach is a testament to ignorance.

My advice would be to watch the games, watch the performance of the players on our team and that of the opponent. Watch the overall competitiveness and give the coaching some credit for that. Watch the individual mistakes by the players and give those individual players credit for that.

And hey people, we had 5 possessions in which we could have scored AFTER the Gordon TD in the Colts game. We even had a possession after the punt on 4th and 1 from the Cots 41 which some seem to have a problem with.

We punted, held them to 3 and out, got the ball back with over 4 minutes left and down 17-13. AND THEN...we had decent starting field position at our own 31, moved the ball to the Colts 43 in 2 plays, but had 3 incomplete passes, including the one to Cooper on 4th down. There's your game.

Go cry about the execution, the play of Weeden, Gordon, Little, the Offensive Line...and hey, how about credit to the Colts defense as well.

NAW...just be unreasonable, close your eyes, and buy into the hype directing you toward ignorance and help reward those marketing teams that assume you all want to be led like over-emotional sheep to their conclusions. They love it when you don't think, by the way.

What exactly are you missing? The HC is the leader, and ours is inept compared to HS coaches in good programs.

It all starts at the top. If you don't think this ineptitude is systemic, and a root cause of this team's failure, you are drinking some new kind of kool-aid that is very bad._________________Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way

The team has struggled mightily in short-yardage situations, converting just 8-of-18 third-and-1s.

Browns rookie quarterback Brandon Weeden has a large enough learning curve without having to wait for the plays, process the information and relay it to teammates in the huddle. Weeden didn't have to say a word after Sunday's loss when asked about the three timeouts. The frustration was evident.

Of course, the season's low moment for play-calling came in the 17-13 defeat at Indianapolis on Oct. 21. The Browns failed to pick up one yard on two tries from the Colts' 41 late in the game. In Shurmur's defense, the Browns made a great call on third down and Josh Gordon dropped a touchdown pass.

But the 40-second play clock waits for no one and by the time the Browns elected to go for it they were not ready to run a play. After calling time out, Shurmur elected to punt. Browns owner Jimmy Haslam didn't have to say a word. The frustration was evident.

Unlike Crennel and the Chiefs, losing by an average of 13.8 points, the Browns are in virtually every game. But when you continue to squander them and game management is a recurring issue, maybe it's time to allow someone else make the calls. That is, while it's still your decision to make.

Hey folks, this is certain proof that using a timeout automatically makes you lose games.

How can anyone disagree that Shurmur is a the worst coach ever to play QB, WR, RB, and defense ever!!!

In other news, plenty of winning coaches use timeouts when plays come in from the sideline too slow or in crucial game situations. Apparently, this is not a big deal when the play is executed well or the team wins.

Now, it may be a great idea to "streamline' the play calling. Teams should always try to be more efficient with everything, but that's not why we are losing. Why some people perseverate on blaming the coach is a testament to ignorance.

My advice would be to watch the games, watch the performance of the players on our team and that of the opponent. Watch the overall competitiveness and give the coaching some credit for that. Watch the individual mistakes by the players and give those individual players credit for that.

And hey people, we had 5 possessions in which we could have scored AFTER the Gordon TD in the Colts game. We even had a possession after the punt on 4th and 1 from the Cots 41 which some seem to have a problem with.

We punted, held them to 3 and out, got the ball back with over 4 minutes left and down 17-13. AND THEN...we had decent starting field position at our own 31, moved the ball to the Colts 43 in 2 plays, but had 3 incomplete passes, including the one to Cooper on 4th down. There's your game.

Go cry about the execution, the play of Weeden, Gordon, Little, the Offensive Line...and hey, how about credit to the Colts defense as well.

NAW...just be unreasonable, close your eyes, and buy into the hype directing you toward ignorance and help reward those marketing teams that assume you all want to be led like over-emotional sheep to their conclusions. They love it when you don't think, by the way.

What exactly are you missing? The HC is the leader, and ours is inept compared to HS coaches in good programs.

It all starts at the top. If you don't think this ineptitude is systemic, and a root cause of this team's failure, you are drinking some new kind of kool-aid that is very bad.

Your opinion is silly and hyperbolic. I don't know what else to say man.

Except:

I know you are able to understand that wins and losses are mostly subject to the execution of plays on the field, yet you choose to ignore it.

You want to narrow a very complicated formula, that involves the performance of several dozen people, down to the actions of one person.

That is what media does since it makes for more emotion-provoking sound bites. But, it doesn’t hold up to any real scrutiny.

Yes, the head coach is most often held responsible for the outcome of games. No, the head coach is not really responsible for the outcome of games. You just can't really fire all of your players, or even some of them, for losing.

If you continue this extreme line of thinking, I will continue to feel sorry for you._________________

Cutler left the game with a concussion, um, but not right away...he played a few downs first, THEN was evaluated at halftime and didn't return.

Seemed pretty obvious he was hit in the head and was shaken up. Do those of you that fault Shurmur also fault Lovie Smith? Especially since there are now specific protocols in place, yet Cutler still played a few more downs?

Is Lovie Smith a horrible coach? Or is this ok since his team has a winning record?

Cutler left the game with a concussion, um, but not right away...he played a few downs first, THEN was evaluated at halftime and didn't return.

Seemed pretty obvious he was hit in the head and was shaken up. Do those of you that fault Shurmur also fault Lovie Smith? Especially since there are now specific protocols in place, yet Cutler still played a few more downs?

Is Lovie Smith a horrible coach? Or is this ok since his team has a winning record?

See guys, you can't have it both ways.

Hey bro.....by your way of thinking, a coach should never be fired. It's always the players fault.

Bro....A coach must not be responsible for getting his players ready and putting them in the best position to win.

Bro... A coach is certainly not responsible for the play-calling that only the media thinks is suspect.

Bro....A coach is only one guy and whether or not he shows an ability to lead has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of games.

I mean bro..... a coach really is just a figure-head and anyone could do the job. Heck...get Joe-blow from the streets to come in, and if he has talent, his team will win games.

Bro
Didn't see the game, so I can't speak on what Lovie Smith did in regards to leaving Cutler in the game. Doesn't matter if he has a winning record or not, if he left him in the game when it was obvious that Cutler had a concussion, then he should get blamed for keeping him in.

Ask yourself this bro...How many coaches are in the league that you would rather have than Pat Shurmur? If there aren't many, then I feel sorry for you._________________
BIG UPS TO REG....DA MAN

Cutler left the game with a concussion, um, but not right away...he played a few downs first, THEN was evaluated at halftime and didn't return.

Seemed pretty obvious he was hit in the head and was shaken up. Do those of you that fault Shurmur also fault Lovie Smith? Especially since there are now specific protocols in place, yet Cutler still played a few more downs?

Is Lovie Smith a horrible coach? Or is this ok since his team has a winning record?

See guys, you can't have it both ways.

Hey bro.....by your way of thinking, a coach should never be fired. It's always the players fault.

Bro....A coach must not be responsible for getting his players ready and putting them in the best position to win.

Bro... A coach is certainly not responsible for the play-calling that only the media thinks is suspect.

Bro....A coach is only one guy and whether or not he shows an ability to lead has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of games.

I mean bro..... a coach really is just a figure-head and anyone could do the job. Heck...get Joe-blow from the streets to come in, and if he has talent, his team will win games.

Bro
Didn't see the game, so I can't speak on what Lovie Smith did in regards to leaving Cutler in the game. Doesn't matter if he has a winning record or not, if he left him in the game when it was obvious that Cutler had a concussion, then he should get blamed for keeping him in.

Ask yourself this bro...How many coaches are in the league that you would rather have than Pat Shurmur? If there aren't many, then I feel sorry for you.

See, I was using the word "bro" to be polite, you then used it to be annoying and childish.

You also absolutely misrepresented what I said. Don't ever claim to know what someone else is thinking when you can't even provide any evidence.

I know that you were using "bro" to be rude, my evidence is your post with the egregious use of the word "bro".

Your evidence that I was claiming that no coach should ever be fired is based on NOTHING I said.

My suggestion to you would be to read my posts more carefully, and try to formulate intelligent responses.

Let's see if the Chicago media and their fans fixate on leaving Cutler in the game a few plays after he was concussed. Let's also see if any other teams, who have already had a few similar situations this year, do it as well.

My guess is that they won't as long as their team is winning.

Now, if you want to put on your big-boy pants and have a discussion, answer these questions that I asked already:

Which coach was going to make Colt McCoy a top 15 QB?
Which was going to make Massaquoi not injury prone?
Which coach was going to make Brian Robiskie not a bad pick?

and a few more...

Which coach was going to make Richardson not miss preseason?
Which coach was going to get a winning record starting so many rookies on offense and defense?

Now here is an important part, try to clean out your ears this time for this one:

Did I say Shurmur was a great coach? Did I say he has not made any mistakes? Did I say coaches should never be fired?_________________

Cutler left the game with a concussion, um, but not right away...he played a few downs first, THEN was evaluated at halftime and didn't return.

Seemed pretty obvious he was hit in the head and was shaken up. Do those of you that fault Shurmur also fault Lovie Smith? Especially since there are now specific protocols in place, yet Cutler still played a few more downs?

Is Lovie Smith a horrible coach? Or is this ok since his team has a winning record?

See guys, you can't have it both ways.

Hey bro.....by your way of thinking, a coach should never be fired. It's always the players fault.

Bro....A coach must not be responsible for getting his players ready and putting them in the best position to win.

Bro... A coach is certainly not responsible for the play-calling that only the media thinks is suspect.

Bro....A coach is only one guy and whether or not he shows an ability to lead has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of games.

I mean bro..... a coach really is just a figure-head and anyone could do the job. Heck...get Joe-blow from the streets to come in, and if he has talent, his team will win games.

Bro
Didn't see the game, so I can't speak on what Lovie Smith did in regards to leaving Cutler in the game. Doesn't matter if he has a winning record or not, if he left him in the game when it was obvious that Cutler had a concussion, then he should get blamed for keeping him in.

Ask yourself this bro...How many coaches are in the league that you would rather have than Pat Shurmur? If there aren't many, then I feel sorry for you.

See, I was using the word "bro" to be polite, you then used it to be annoying and childish.

You also absolutely misrepresented what I said. Don't ever claim to know what someone else is thinking when you can't even provide any evidence.

I know that you were using "bro" to be rude, my evidence is your post with the egregious use of the word "bro".

Your evidence that I was claiming that no coach should ever be fired is based on NOTHING I said.

My suggestion to you would be to read my posts more carefully, and try to formulate intelligent responses.

Let's see if the Chicago media and their fans fixate on leaving Cutler in the game a few plays after he was concussed. Let's also see if any other teams, who have already had a few similar situations this year, do it as well.

My guess is that they won't as long as their team is winning.

Now, if you want to put on your big-boy pants and have a discussion, answer these questions that I asked already:

Which coach was going to make Colt McCoy a top 15 QB?
Which was going to make Massaquoi not injury prone?
Which coach was going to make Brian Robiskie not a bad pick?

and a few more...

Which coach was going to make Richardson not miss preseason?
Which coach was going to get a winning record starting so many rookies on offense and defense?

Now here is an important part, try to clean out your ears this time for this one:

Did I say Shurmur was a great coach? Did I say he has not made any mistakes? Did I say coaches should never be fired?

Yes the bro comments were meant to be sarcastic...Not a big fan of the word. Your condescending comments I believe warranted that.

Don't have an answer as to who would have made the Browns better, however, I believe I have seen enough to know that it isn't Shurmur.

You ask what coach would have made Colt a better QB? It's obvious you had seen enough of him to see that it was time to move on...how many games did he get?

Does this mean that a coach should be given more time than a QB for you to formulate an opinion as to whether or not he is good?

By the tone of your posts, it appears that you feel that most of the blame should be put on the players. I even stated that for the most part I agree with that. They are the ones that are playing the game. If you don't feel that Shurmur is blameless, then say so.

I think it's time to move on. He is just about gone already. I would allow Jauron or Chilly to finish out the year and then figure out what to do in the off-season. You obviously feel differently._________________
BIG UPS TO REG....DA MAN

The PFO is responsible for the staff that he put together to run and coach this team...

Sorry, but there are multiple areas with a black eye.

What are you sorry for? That seems pretty accurate.

Now look at what really needs to change. From my perspective it would be the performance of the players moreso than anything else.

Unless you think that we don't have enough talent, which I will agrue that we do.

Talent doesn't win football games though, execution does. Coaching doesn't win football games, execution does. Talent and coaching can impact the development of indiviual players AND the ability of those players to fill roles on a unit of players. THEN the players have to play at a high level to have a chance.

However, Jerry Rice didn't catch every pass, Joe Montana still threw INTs, Walsh was 8-24 his first 2 years with San Francisco.

Why did Rice and Montana make mistakes? Bad coaching? lack of talent? Actually it far more complicated than that. There are circumstances where it was a lack of concentration, others when it was another player's error, maybe a wet ball, and hey-maybe the defense played them really well on a given play...and let's not forget plain old bad luck.

Why did the 49ers lose so many games during Walsh’s first 2 years? Montana was available, heck they even had OJ Simpson at RB when Montana was a rookie. The talent was there, right?

And hey, since all their success was due to the talent of Montana and the coaching of Walsh, the when those guys are gone...um...they went 14-2, 10-6, 13-3(SB Champs), 11-5, 12-4, 13-3, and 12-4 during 2 more coaching changes (Seifert and Mooch).

Anyone think it was the coach? Seifert did awful for the Panthers, well actually, it is more accurate to say "The Panthers played badly when Seifert was the coach". Also, the Lions played badly when Mariucci was the coach.

Good coaching doesn’t make players more talented or experienced. And it is CLEARLY the talent and experience of the players that MOSTLY determines the outcome of football games._________________